Over one hundred years ago now, people in these communities did consider the memory of these people (and, their cause, whatever they personally thought it was), to be a thing of “monumental” importance. And I, for one, am not prepared to rip that thing from the ground. I am neither prepared nor willing to treat it as an object of contempt, because I know that in so doing I would be callously treating those people(!) with that same contempt. And, I choose to value history more than that.

Quote by: MikeRobinson Over one hundred years ago now, people in these communities did consider the memory of these people (and, their cause, whatever they personally thought it was), to be a thing of “monumental” importance. And I, for one, am not prepared to rip that thing from the ground. I am neither prepared nor willing to treat it as an object of contempt, because I know that in so doing I would be callously treating those people(!) with that same contempt. And, I choose to value history more than that.

Google: "when were confederate monuments erected"

Most were erected by Dixiecrats during the Jim Crow era (with the greatest proliferation circa 1920s) as none-to-subtle public symbols meant to intimidate African-Americans.

It’s easy to be revisionist – to decide, and then not to question – that “those bad old Southerners” had Jim Crow in mind. But in fact, the recognition of the Civil War as an important albeit very bloody period of American history began ... very close to my home. The Chickamauga and Chattanooga National Military Park, authorized in 1890 and dedicated in September, 1895. It was the first National Military Park, alongside Shiloh, Gettysburg, and Vicksburg.

In most towns of the region, there is a monument to the Confederate soldier, erected in some cases by the widows of those soldiers while they were yet still alive. It most certainly can’t be sustained, if one takes careful look at the record, that these monuments were erected with “Jim Crow” motives. In fact, there are monuments to black Confederate soldiers. The web-page cited above includes this comment:

An estimated 65,000 or more African American men, both free and slave, were Confederate soldiers – a fact which is often overlooked by history books because it contradicts the politically correct northern view of the War for Southern Independence.

By the end of the Civil War, roughly 179,000 black men (10% of the Union Army) served as soldiers in the U.S. Army and another 19,000 served in the Navy. Nearly 40,000 black soldiers died over the course of the war—30,000 of infection or disease. Black soldiers served in artillery and infantry and performed all noncombat support functions that sustain an army, as well. Black carpenters, chaplains, cooks, guards, laborers, nurses, scouts, spies, steamboat pilots, surgeons, and teamsters also contributed to the war cause. There were nearly 80 black commissioned officers. Black women, who could not formally join the Army, nonetheless served as nurses, spies, and scouts, the most famous being Harriet Tubman, who scouted for the 2d South Carolina Volunteers.

Because of prejudice against them, black units were not used in combat as extensively as they might have been. Nevertheless, the soldiers served with distinction in a number of battles. Black infantrymen fought gallantly at Milliken's Bend, LA; Port Hudson, LA; Petersburg, VA; and Nashville, TN. The July 1863 assault on Fort Wagner, SC, in which the 54th Regiment of Massachusetts Volunteers lost two-thirds of their officers and half of their troops, was memorably dramatized in the film, “Glory.” By war’s end, 16 black soldiers had been awarded the Medal of Honor for their valor.

We cannot ... we must not ... seek to expunge from the pages of history things which we do not understand. Or, that are contrary to our present-day fashions of “political correctness.” Our nation waged “Total War” upon itself, for a complex series of reasons including not only Slavery (which has certainly not been expunged from our agriculture ... we just use undocumented Mexicans now), but State’s Rights and the proper role of the Federal government. These issues should feel very, very contemporary to us today. These men (and women) literally staged a second American Revolution, not quite one hundred years after the first one, and lost it.

White men and black men alike were swept up in a conflict that killed more “American Soldiers” than all other Wars that our nation has been involved with ... combined! About 750,000 people.

We should never permit anyone to “re-write” what did occur, in all of its complexity, with a simple-minded whitewash meant to suit today’s political purposes.

We should soberly bear in mind that the institution of Agricultural Slavery did not disappear from the United States when the African slaves were emancipated. It simply changed form – to the “undocumented (Mexican) worker,” who is held in a state of at least indentured servitude if not outright slavery, with the Sword of Damocles hanging above him in the form of the INS.

This Article includes a review of Dr. Aviva Chomsky’s book, Undocumented: How Immigration Became Illegal. The page is interesting reading:

However, our system is not simply in chaos; the state of dysfunction actually works well for powerful constituencies. The human ebb and flow has always been part of a strategy by American employers to reduce costs by driving down wages. As U.S. manufacturers began outsourcing labor to Third World countries in the 1970s and 1980s, businesses that needed to remain on American soil insourced immigrant workers in order to accomplish similar goals. Regardless of the era, legislative remedies have not limited the corporate appetite for a workforce whose uncertain legal status makes them easy to exploit.

So it would be very easy – too easy, too convenient – for us to look at the injustices that were inflicted upon people of African descent, and to celebrate the victories that they managed to achieve, and to conclude that the promise of the 13th Amendment had in fact been realized. Tear down all those “repugnant” statues, but do not ask questions about where your avocadoes come from. Make no mention in the Press of the people, both in America and in Mexico, who are fighting agricultural slavery today. (And, it might well also be said, the “non-immigrant visa holder,” who often faces grim human-rights abuses but who says nothing as he works side-by-side with you in your office. I have related the tale of watching seventeen such people filing out of an apartment in Nashville, Tennessee. “Illegal as hell,” but there it is ...)

At the end of the day, as America attempts to move forward with respect to race, it's about time that we decry the cruelty of celebrating the systematic oppression of black people.
I'm not talking about commemorative parks where thousands lost their lives in a senseless war, or statues of fallen soldiers black or white. Honoring political and military leaders who marched those men to their deaths to preserve slavery - that needs to be addressed. Those monuments that mostly came later (1920's) as a form of revisionist history, and Jim Crow intimidation, those monuments no longer have a place in our cities. If preserving these statues is so important, then they should be housed in museums for those who care to view them.

It's better to regret something you have done, than something you haven't done.

2) The impact of public monuments in civic spaces is symbolic. The totality of what those symbols mean to all members of the community is relevant.

How does a statue of Stonewall Jackson represent the freed slaves of the Union army? That's like defending a statue of Joseph Goebbels by saying, "Well, a lot of allied soldiers and civilians died fighting Germany. We should honor them by erecting statues in the town square to the leaders they fought against, the men who imprisoned and subjugated them."

Germany is awash with WWII monuments. How many are of Nazi generals and leaders? A statue of Rommel in front of the court house might be a benign historical reminder to some, but to Jewish members of the community it would be astoundingly oppressive and offensive.

If the intent is to honor freed slaves and the suffering of the often nameless soldiers of the confederacy then why these statues of confederate generals and leaders installed during the mid twentieth century? What's wrong with actual statues of freed slaves and humble but noble soldiers (the real men memorialized by those grieving widows)?

I'm all for historical monuments, but these statues are symbolic, not merely historic, and the location in prominent civic spaces elevates that symbolism to a communal statement. If you don't think civic statues of confederate leaders carry the tacit symbolism of oppression maybe you should question why avowed racists rally around them, rather than equally historical but more benign monuments.

How about we move the statue of Jefferson Davis to a museum and erect in its place a statue of a confederate soldier and freed slave breaking and throwing off chains together? Keep the statues of husbands installed by widows, but replace those that celebrate the leaders of the confederacy with something more symbolically appropriate for the entirety of the community.